1. Field of Invention
This invention is related to picture frame display devices, specifically to an improved knock down frame that is capable of engaging a multitude of interchangeable elements on an integral supporting device.
2. Background of the Invention
The design of picture frames has dealt in large part with a picture frame's two necessary functions: (1) to hold a photo for viewing and (2) to integrate into the frame, some mechanism which allows the frame to stand upright, or be mounted to a surface to facilitate such viewing.
In a picture frame where a picture is held behind a transparent surface, most frames utilize a structural border element. U.S. Pat. No. 6,101,753 to Shieh (2000) although not unique in this manner, is sufficient to illustrate the basic disadvantages of such designs. The structural integrity of this kind of picture frame is provided by a structural border which acts as a continuous perimeter frame for the transparent surface. Such designs by their nature, consist of a large number of parts and require the addition of a separate mechanism which must hold the picture within the frame and against the back of the transparent surface, and another separate mechanism by which the frame is mounted to a wall, or set stably upright on a table. Such designs, although ubiquitous in shops and stores around the country, are by nature of their flawed complexity and the labor intensity of their fabrication, expensive to produce. Such frames are rendered inoperable when the frames fall apart at the corners. Where such corner devices are provided to strengthen the frames at the corners, such parts are numerous, expensive, and are simply a temporary fix to an old problem.
Prior art has allowed the typical picture frame, described above, to be reduced in complexity by removing the necessity for a structural border. U.S. Pat. No. 4,310,976 to Wilton (1982) is one such example of a frame where both the structural frame border and the matting have been removed to reduce complexity and cost. The disadvantage of this invention can be seen in the number of parts required and the superfluous nature of its support element. This frame requires numerous threaded fasteners to hold the picture between two transparent sheets, and the multiple fasteners add unnecessary cost and unneeded complexity to the design. Although the design requires this structural redundancy in order to function, it gains no additional utility or value as a result. In addition, the frame continues to be subject to the problem that it requires the addition of a separate and superfluous mechanism to properly support the frame for viewing.
The advantages of integrating a support device into the frame itself has been explored in prior art. The potential advantages of utilizing a support element in such a way that it also serves as the mechanism by which the frame members sandwich a photograph, are illustrated by Korzon (1978) U.S. Pat. No. 4,091,555. However, the frame suffers from the detrimental complexity of its design. Although claiming to be of knock-down construction, the frame appears difficult to assemble. The support element consists of three parts which must be attached at 4 separate holes which are drilled through both layers of clear plastic which sandwich the photograph. The manufacturing process which produces a frame of this complexity is certainly more expensive and time consuming than one used to produce simpler designs. Korzon's own words describe the “plurality of rods” and the “plurality of ports” to engage the rods. Such a description reveals a flawed complexity which results in a frame and an assembly procedure that is more complicated than necessary.
Prior art has attempted to solve the issues of unnecessary complexity and the use of numerous superfluous parts, illustrated in the examples above. U.S. Pat. No. 2,409,814 to Vargish (1946) is an example of such a frame which reduces the picture frame to a single homogenous element. It consists of a single length of transparent material made from a single length of transparent sheet material folded to form a front panel, a back panel, and a foot portion to support the frame. The benefits of such a frame are obvious for cost and ease of use, but the frame has been simplified deleteriously. The frame's quality suffers because of the market's understanding of its cheapness of cost combined with the simplicity of construction. When a frame such as this is purchased, or given as a gift, it is understood that the cheapness and simplicity relegates it to that of a disposable item. In addition, the lack of variability of the design does not allow changes to the frame except the photo that it contains. Although the frame may be manufactured in various colors, and etchings on the plastic could be used, the frame itself has no parts (integral or otherwise) which may enhance its utility.
Slightly more complex prior art suggests a possible benefit from added features which, although adding additional components, may increase the value and enhance the utility of a frame device. U.S. Pat. No. 2,486,174 to Kissling (1949) integrates a supporting device of a particular helical shape made from a single piece of material. However, because the frame is of a unique aesthetic design, it illustrates a major disadvantage: the unique fixed character of a frame limits its marketability. What the frame gains from the unique shape of its support member, it loses as a result of the limited and fixed nature of the visual effect provided.
Most picture frames suffer from either unnecessary complexity, deleterious oversimplification, limited usefulness due to the fixed nature of their designs, or a combination of these problems. In the case of U.S. Pat. No. 560,465 to Bostwick (1896), there is revealed yet another problem. Although Bostwick overcame the problem of limited marketability by incorporating an element of interchangeability into a picture frame support device, the support element and its variable ornament is not an integral part of the frame in such a way that the frame and the support member are fixed together in a manner that ensures their inseparability. If the support leg in Bostwick's design separates from the frame (a likelihood so great as to be inevitable) the frame is rendered useless. The problem with this design, and many others, is that the frame contains necessary, independent elements without which the frame is unable to function as intended. And in the specific case of Bostwick, the problem is inflamed by the fact that the element of interchangeability is precisely that element which is independent of the frame itself.
Prior non-patented art has modified U.S. Pat. No. 4,310,976 to Wilton (1982) by integrating into the two bottom fasteners, a means by which the frame is supported for viewing. This is accomplished by the use of an elongated support member extending rearward, which also acts as the fastening element for the bottom of the frame. In this manner, a design manufactured for the Muji company (a subsidiary of Ryohin Keikaku Europe, 5th Floor 167-169 Great Portland Street, London, UK) and another manufactured for Ikea both solve the problem of the use of superfluous mechanisms in display frame design. Although this integral support mechanism is an advantage over Wilton (1982) the designs of both the Muji frame and the Ikea frame erroneously include the disadvantages inherent in Wilton (1982), the shortcomings apparent in Vargish (1946) and the problems evident in Kissling (1949). For the sake of simplification, because the frames are identical, I will refer to only the Ikea frame in the following arguments. It should be understood however that any discussion of the Ikea frame is also entirely applicable to the Muji frame.
Similar to Wilton (1982) the Ikea frame includes a number of redundant elements which are necessary for the frame to function, but which do not add value or utility to the frame. The Ikea frame has two plates of plastic with one hole in each corner of each plate, for a total of eight holes. Each hole requires a two part threaded fastener, for a total of eight individual threaded fasteners. Thus, there are a large quantity of elements required for the frame to properly function, and also multiple processes required to manufacture the plastic frame so that it is able to engage all the necessary fasteners. These required manufacturing processes and elements add unnecessary cost and unneeded complexity to the design, and the frame gains no enhanced value or utility as a result.
In addition, similarly to Wilton (1982) the frame is limited to including only substantially two dimensional photographs. Any objects thicker than a standard photograph will cause bowing of the plastic sheets. Although this bowing can be accommodated by flexible materials like acrylic or other similar plastics, the resulting curvature compromises the integrity of the frame and of the art object or photograph within. The curvature will cause varied and distracting light to reflect off the uneven front surface which is intended to remain flat. This light reflection is distracting and it will make the proper viewing of the photograph difficult. Thus, since the sole function of this frame is to display a photograph for viewing, the aforementioned limitations compromise the frames intended function.
Similar to Vargish (1946) the Ikea frame has been oversimplified deleteriously. The only embellishment available to this frame is the photograph it contains. There is no other proscribed method for enhancing the frame itself in a simple way. The fixed nature of its design, although different from Kissling (1949), is limiting in terms of the visual effect provided. Its value is therefore diminished in proportion to the inability of the frame to be customized in a manner which may enhance its value and usefulness.
Another disadvantage of the Ikea frame is that a number of parts (in this case, fasteners) must be completely removed from the frame in order for the photograph to be inserted or removed. The removal of these numerous fasteners carries with it the possibility that one of these elements will be lost or misplaced during the regular process of changing the photograph. If the intention of the frame is to be a simple device of knockdown construction and to allow a photograph to be repeatedly inserted or removed, then this design affects this function negatively. Since the sole function of the frame is to display a photograph the potential loss of necessary elements is a major disadvantage.
As is evidenced by the range of information presented above, all picture frames heretofore known suffer from a number of disadvantages:                (a) Picture frames have superfluous elements for support or mounting of the frame for viewing. Such elements add unnecessary complexity and add cost to the design.        (b) Picture frames contain elements of their construction that are not integrally fastened and could be lost, misplaced, or damaged during regular handling, or during the process of inserting, removing or replacing a photograph.        (c) Picture frames utilize a continuous perimeter frame which has structurally connected corners, fastened in such a way that they may become damaged, rendering the frame inoperable.        (d) The continuous perimeter frame requires a large number of unique parts to mate the perimeter frame to the other pieces of the assembly: (1) a transparent surface, (2) matting, (3) a backing element to hold the matting and the photo against the transparent surface (which must be removed periodically to gain access to the photo), and (4) a mechanism by which the whole frame assembly supports itself for viewing.        (e) In general, picture frames have a large number of parts, making them expensive to produce and difficult to assemble.        (f) Most picture frames lack the novelty of being of knock-down construction, wherein they are intended to be assembled by the end user.        (g) Even in situations where the picture frames are intended to be assembled by the end user, the ease of such assembly is stymied by the flawed complexity of the frame's design.        (h) Picture frames have been oversimplified deleteriously; to the point that there is little ability to customize the frame except by replacing the picture within.        (i) Picture frames have been designed in a such a way that their fixed forms have limited aesthetic value, and there is no proscribed method for enhancing the frame itself in a simple way.        (j) Picture frames made of plastic or other similar materials become bowed by the photographs placed between the layers of the assembly, making it difficult to view the photograph because of distracting light reflections off the uneven surface.        